The Federal Assembly is today considering the
draft of one of the most important bills in socialist
Yugoslavia — the bill on management of state economic enterprises and higher economic associations by
the workers. The adoption of this bill will be the most
significant historic act of the Federal Assembly next
to the Law on Nationalization of the Means of Production. When the state took over the means of production, that still did not mean fulfillment of the action
slogan of the working class movement — "the factories
for the workers". The mottoes "the factories for the
workers" and "the land for the peasants" are not
abstract, propaganda slogans, but mottoes which have
deep meaning. They contain the entire program of
socialist relations in production, in regard to social
ownership, in regard to the rights and duties of working people. Therefore, they can be and they must be
realized in practice if we are really to build socialism.

This bill giving the working collectives of the
factories and enterprises the right to manage them is
a logical consequence of the development of the socialist building of our country. It is the consistent continuation of a series of measures being implemented by our
People's Government in its unswerving road to socialism. The conditions for this are already partially ripe.
Every day, our working collectives are showing their
maturity, their high degree of consciousness as
expressed through their heroic efforts to finish planned
tasks. How is it that our workers show such enthusiasm and self-sacrifice in competing to carry out their
planned tasks ahead of schedule? Because they understand that the building of socialism in our country
depends on them alone and that the fruits of their
labors go to their benefit. Our working people have
had a chance to see that the People's Government has
full faith in them and that it is concerned with their
welfare. On the other hand, our working people have
shown that they are ready to overcome even the
greatest difficulties in their work. Are not these
workers, then, capable of managing their factories
themselves, workers who are making such efforts,
who are investing such efforts and self-sacrifice in
turing out the greatest possible number of products,
who are building new factories, new projects, new
railways with such energy, who are showing such
great devotion to their work by bending all their
strength to improving the means of production by way
of introducing new and better methods? Of course
they are capable of management, while the new
workers coming into the factories, mines and other
enterprises will learn from their co-workers.

There may be some who consider this bill premature, who think that the workers will not be able to
master the complicated technique of running factories
and other enterprises. Whoever reasons this way is
deceiving himself for such a point of view means
distrust of our workers, blindness to their tremendous
creative abilities which will be developed by the management of the factories. This law will open up new
prospects for the future of our working people and
for our whole community. It is therefore not only not
premature; but even a little late. It is late because our
Party, until the announcement of the infamous Cominform Resolution, had too many illusions and was too
uncritical in taking and replanting here everything
that was being done in the Soviet Union, even those
things which were not in harmony with our specific
conditions, or in the spirit of the science of Marxism-
Leninism. It was ready-made recipes that were wanted
and that were imposed on us, or that we ourselves
went after. There was a tendency to take the line of
least resistance.

But today, we ourselves are building socialism in
our country. We are not using any kind of stereotype
but are rather being governed by the science of
Marxism and are going our own way, minding the
specific conditions which exist in our country. Stereotyped ideas taken from others have done us a lot of
harm and their serious consequences are still being
felt. These stereotyped ideas took hold willy-nilly
and it is hard for our people to shed them now even
if they want to. At the last minute, we undertook
measures to put a stop to such practices along all
lines. That is why the successes in development are
growing day by day. This successful realization of
Marxist science in experience makes it possible for us
to fight against its revision and for victory of the truth
about our socialist country. In our own country, in
practice, we have had a chance to see how this science
throws light on the most obscure questions. Whoever
wants to understand it and is capable of perceiving its
spirit needs no other authorities, no other instructors,
no ersatz Marxist science which can only cause deviation from the correct socialist way to the road of
revisionism.

Turning to Marx, Engels and Lenin, one can, in
the main, find the answers to all problems in principle.
The elaboration and application of these principles in
each country separately can be made only by those
who grew up in that country, who knows its problems,
its history, its customs, its weaknesses and strength,
who can see what is going on right there where it is
happening and who, at the same time, know Marxist
science. That means that they must understand its
spirit, use it effectively and put it into practice. Today,
at the peak of political and economic disorder in the
world, in a period of ideological and political chaos
in countries which have the conditions for developing
socialism but are being obstructed by forces from
outside, it is more important than ever before not to
deviate from the basic principles and spirit of that
science. It would be of great importance for the communist leaders of these countries to have the courage
to think with their own heads and also that this science
really be applied in practice in those countries where
the conditions exist for it. And it would be especially
important for it to be applied in relations among
socialist countries instead of serving purposes which
are the opposite of socialist. This is the case with the
Soviet leaders and the governments which are under
their influence as regards unsocialist attitudes toward
Yugoslavia.

The aim of this address is not simply to refute
various accusations or to criticize the Soviet Union
and other Eastern countries but to try to explain, in
broad outlines and in connection with this bill, that our
way to socialism is in accord with Marxist science, to
point out the successes we have achieved on the basis
of that teaching and the perspectives of further development. If I refer to the calumniation of our socialist
country by the Cominform, headed by the Soviet
leaders, I shall do so only in connection with the
theoretical distortion of that science and practical
implementation of that revisionism in their own
country and in the relations among socialist countries.
This is because the opinion had taken hold here that
what was being done in the Soviet Union was the
best and the only right thing and that it simply needed
to be transferred here and applied in practice, no
matter what the outcome. We nevertheless noticed
this un-Marxist concept on time and went our own
way.

In referring to our achievements, I do not do so
in order to compare them with Soviet achievements,
for the Soviet Union undoubtedly had great success
in economic development during the first 15-20 years
(although this still does not mean everything for socialism). I am doing so in order to refute the disloyal,
dishonest and thoroughly harmful criticism and propaganda aiming to deceive the world as to what is
going on in our country. So far, we have passed a
whole series of various kinds of laws and measures,
on whose basis we are building socialism. But not
much was said or written about them because it
seemed that they were understandable in themselves.
It has been to our detriment that we have not given
this kind of thing enough publicity abroad for we know
that the world has been deafened by the terrific aim of
the Cominform press and radio whose aim is to deny
all the facts about us.

Today, the Soviet leaders and all the servile
leaders of other communist parties are disputing our
revolution, our hard struggle. They are not only trying to deny that we are Marxists and that we are
building socialism, but they also say that we are
fascists. There is no length to which they have not
gone in blackening our name. This is simply the most
ordinary kind of unethical propaganda worthy of fascist mouthpieces of the type of Goebbels and others.
It is to be expected that it causes a certain amount
of confusion in the countries where it is carried on and
where facts about our country are still not well known.
But that propaganda cannot change things here
because it cannot make us over to suit itself. Their
propaganda will never succeed in getting us to be false
to ourselves, or to betray the teachings of those great
thinkers Marx, Engels and Lenin. To prevent anyone
from thinking that we are defending ourselves with
words alone, I shall bring out some of the most important
facts illustrating what we have done so far, what
our country is like and where it is going.

Firstly, during the Liberation War, we put an end
to the old state machine as an instrument of the invaders. This included a) administration; b) police and
gendarmerie which were sustaining the ruling bourgeoisie; c) the remainder of the military organization
of the emigre government in the person of Drazha
Mihailovich's Chetniks, Pavelich's Ustasha military
organization, and Rurpuik's White Guards. We were
consistent in carry out this revolutionary work in the
spirit of the principles laid down by the classics of
Marxism because we applied their teaching in full
measure. Our Army is an entirely new one from the
soldiers to the officers. It is made up of workers and
peasants armed in the course of the Liberation War,
in the People's Revolution. Its commanders, from the
non-commissioned officers to the generals, are workers, peasants and professionals who took part in the
war, in the People's Revolution. The militia and the
security forces are made up of the same type of people.
The state administration is composed of workers, peasants and professionals, and this is especially true of
the executives. The executive positions in the economy
are in the main held by tried and true men and women
from the ranks of the professionals, workers and
peasants so that it can really be said that the state
power is in the hands of the working people of our
country.

The Cominformists will probably say that this is
not true, that the Red Army liberated the country. But
the facts are otherwise. The facts testify that we were
obstructed by them during the war in our revolutionary
work of realizing the achievements of the Liberation
War. The facts say that the foundations of our People's
Government were laid in 1941, when thousands of
miles lay between us and the Red Army which was at
that time in retreat. The facts bear witness that we
ourselves destroyed the military forces of the ruling
class, i. e. the pro-fascist reactionary, bourgeois class
of Yugoslavia, not with the help, but in spite of the
policy of our critics. The facts also tell us that we
ourselves destroyed the old state machinery before the
arrival of the Red Army on our borders in the fall of
1944. They also prove that the peoples of our country
armed themselves and so formed a force of over
7000,000 workers and peasants in arms. Hundreds
upon hundreds of thousands of our citizens lost their
lives in that life-or-death struggle, fighting against the
forces of occupation and the local traitors.

Secondly, as soon as hostilities ceased, we proclaimed Yugoslavia a democratic, federal, people's
republic. During the war, we solved the national
problem and this eliminated national oppression in our
country. This was realized by the creation of the
People's Republics of Macedonia, Montenegro, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Slovenia and Serbia, the
work of the Communist Party which fought over
twenty years to achieve this aim. We solved the
national question so thoroughly that it can really serve
as en example not only to countries with an unsolved
national question, but to the Soviet Union itself. For
here, the nationalities really administer their own
affairs and do not have Administration imposed upon
them from without by a so-called leading nation.
This is simply because we deny the existence of any
sort of leading nation. As soon as one allows that
such a leading nation does exist, this fact itself inevitably leads to national oppression and economic exploitation by the stronger nation which has a monopoly over leadership. This is such a simple matter that it is not necessary to talk about it much. It is easy to
see in the Soviet Union today what the leading nation
means for the other nationalities and what terrible
consequences it can have for peoples who are forced
to leave the places where they have been living not
only hundreds but thousands of years and go to regions
where the climate and other conditions are murderous
for them. Accordingly, we have the right to pretendB
to being the only one of all the socialist countries
which has correctly solved the national question. This
means that we have solved it in the spirit of Marxist
science. The unsocialist behavior toward various
peoples in the USSR and the incorrect attitude toward
national minorities in Bulgaria, Hungary, Rumania,
etc. confirms that. Let anyone who wants to do so
come and see on the spot, not only in our country
but in the above-mentioned countries, too: where are
there elements of racism and nationalism (not to say
fascism) — here or in those countries ascribing such
things to us.

Thirdly, right after the proclamation of the Republic and the adoption of the Constitution we accomplished an historic act in laying down the foundations
for the elimination of man's exploitation by man. The
state took the means of production from the hands of
the private capitalists; we nationalized all factories,
mines and other enterprises, transport means both
water and land, large scale estates and trade (not only
wholesale but all trade), hotels, sanatoriums, etc. We
did this thoroughly so that today there is not one
enterprise, mine or any other institution having a
public character in the hands of foreign or local capitalists. All the clamor of the Cominformists about the
supposed re-infiltration of foreign capitalists into our
country is simply an impudent lie and malicious slander.
When this House decides on having the working collectives take part in the management of the factories,
mines, railways, etc., that will be the most definitive
and convincing answer to all calumniators. The working people of our country will answer such slanders
in the future with still greater creative energy which
will develop in the factories and enterprises which
they manage. They themselves will say to whom the
factories and mines belong.

Fourthly, we have carried out such a thorough
agrarian reform that we left a maximum of 25 hectares
of land in the hands of the rich peasants. About
700,000 hectares were distributed to the poor and
landless peasants from the fund of nationalized land,
the big estates and land which was taken from the
rich peasants and church on the basis of land reform.

Fifth, keeping in mind that socialism cannot be
built in an industrially backward country such as ours
is without creating the material conditions for it, we
took the state power and means of production into
our hands and began creating the conditions for the
victory of socialism in our country. We adopted the
Five Year Plan for the industrialization and electrification of the country. That is really our hardest task
but we are nevertheless carrying it out successfully.
Testimony to this are the hundreds of new factories
and enterprises, railways, modern roads, new schools,
scientific institutions, etc.

What does all this mean? Does it mean fascism
or socialism? And what do some of our other laws
mean, like the Law Prohibiting Incitement of National,
Racial or Religious Hatreds and Dissension under
which strict punishment is meted out to all violators.
Has any fascist country ever had such a law?

Then there are the Law on Confiscation of War
Profits Made During the Enemy Occupation, the Law
of Nationalization of Private Economic Enterprises,
the Law on Transfer of Enemy Property to the State
— and this enemy was not only the collaborator but
also the class enemy, the Law on Confiscation of
Enemy Property and Implementation of Confiscation,
the Basic Law on Expropriation, the Basic Law on
Cooperatives, the Law on Transition to Socialist
Economy in the Villages, the Law on Agrarian Reform
and Land Settlement, the Law on Final Liquidation
of Agricultural Debts, the Law on Insurance of
Workers, Employees and Their Families for which the
state has undertaken the insurance, the Law on
People's Committees which are the foundation of the
people's power, the Law on the Five Year Plan, as a
pre-condition for the development of socialism in our
country.

Almost all our laws have been adopted in that
spirit which is also true of their application. Do these
laws, from the legal point of view, too, provide our
country with socialist features? Of course they do,
and at the same time they are facts refuting all
attacks on, and slanders of, our country.

These few facts, which are the most important
ones historically, throw a clear light on the character
of our revolution, our social order. They show that
our way conforms with Marxist science, that it is
successful and will bring victory. When I say that our
way conforms with Marxist science, I do not mean
that this is the only way to socialism and that exactly
the same must be done in all countries. We simply
think it is the only way for us here in Yugoslavia.
Varying economic, cultural and other conditions in
different countries also demand varying forms. It is
not advisable to use any ready prescriptions or stereotypes. We have Marxist science as a basis and we
only need to know how to use that science in practice,
to bring its spirit and its meaning to life. The experience we gain on the basis of that science is the best
school. Of course, that experience may be used by
others, but not in all details. It is necessary to take a
look at the positive results attained in a socialist country and then seek the most suitable methods to achieve
those results. It is similarly necessary to see the negative things in a socialist country and to endeavour to
avoid them, to find the best way to do so. On the other
hand, when communists criticize the weaknesses and
shortcomings in other socialist countries, they must
base that criticism primarily on the special conditions
existing in that respective country and not on those
existing in their own. They must see roots of such
shortcomings, separate the subjective from the objective weaknesses and then criticize the subjective
insofar as the leaders of that country themselves do
not see, and do not correct, such shortcomings and
mistakes. I have brought this up so that we do not
make the same error being made by the leading communists in many countries, not only in the East but
throughout the world.

It is a great tragedy not only for the working
class but for the entire progressive movement throughout the world in general that the leaders of a party,
the Soviet Communist Party, have succeeded in fettering the minds of the leaders of other parties. They
succeeded in doing so because they made use of the
authority of the Great October Revolution — an
achievement of the great Lenin. Of course, one of the
reasons pertinent here is also a crisis of many years
standing that has held sway since before the war in
the workers' movements of many countries in the
world. But it never occurs to any of those people to
look for the cause of the crisis. In consequence of the
weakness of the workers' movements, the leaders look
with increasing awe and respect at everything the
Soviet leaders say or do, thus creating unreachable
authorities and gods, such as was once done by the
primitive world. The primitive people knew no natural
laws but in each good or evil saw some sort of divinity,
of course with the difference that these divinities were
invisible while those today can be seen and heard.
They expect help from this authority brought in on
the bayonets of others. Should a courageous investigation of these weaknesses be made, certainly many of
the roots of the trouble would lead right up to those
who pretend to infallibility. It would certainly be
proven that dictation and stereotypes have in the past
and today, too, been the main reason for the weakness
of progressive movements in the world. It is precisely
these "infallible" authorities that are the brake on the
correct development of the progressive world in
general, causing people in the communist movements
to deviate to a road of revisionism and thereby
weakening the workers' movement in the world.

Let us take our own experience as an example.
While our Party was getting orders from abroad as
to what it should do and how, we had a weak, numerically small party, torn by internal factional struggles,
set apart not only from the broad masses of the
peoples but also from the majority of the working
class. But, from 1936 on, as soon as we had less directives from abroad, our Party began developing faster
and faster and became the leader of the broad working
masses. When we were preparing for the uprising,
we got no orders from outside but worked on our own,
on the basis of our own appraisal of the situation —
and we were not deceived. We asked no one whether
or not to rise against the fascists, but started fighting
them immediately on the basis of our own estimate of
the situation — as soon as we saw that the time had
come for it. In 1941, in Uzhice, when we started setting up our people's government We luckily had no
connections with Moscow so that we were able to lay
down the first foundations for it, on the basis of which
we are now building socialism. After withdrawing
from Serbia in 1941, we began forming our proletarian
brigades, asking no one for permission to do so (nor
could we have done so, for we had no liaison with
anyone). As soon as we were in a position to inform
the leaders in Moscow of this they immediately started attacking and criticizing us for having done what
we did. They did not want to understand that we
formed proletarian brigades then when the insurrection
in the most important regions was being threatened.
They did not want to understand that we thereby
wanted to emphasize even more strongly the participation of the
working class and the role of the Communist Party in the uprising.
Our experience had convinced us that, without mass participation of
the working class and its self-sacrificing efforts, there can
be no success in an insurrection. The workers — communists and
youth, were best represented in these
proletarian brigades. The working class considered
them its shock detachments which, together with the
peasants, were determining the future of the working
class. And instead of this frightening our peoples as
those outside thought it would, quite the opposite
happened. It caused the people to have more faith
than ever in the Communist Party of Yugoslavia,
brought the Party even closer to the people in common sufferings. We did not take such criticism to
heart, and it is a good thing we did not as it later
turned out. When we were making preparations for
the Second Session of the Anti-fascist Council of the
National Liberation of Yugoslavia in Jajce we again
asked no one for permission for we knew that obstacles would be put in our way, and we were right.
When everything was over and done with, we informed them of the accomplished fact. They answered
that we had thrust a knife in their back. Our peoples
carried out a historic feat, a feat that was the result
of superhuman efforts, fighting against the forces of
occupation and their local, traitorous ruling circles,
meaning the reactionary bourgeoisie. We thus assured
the victory of the people in the war and realization of
the gains of the Liberation War. And they called this
sticking a knife in their back. There were similar
cases before and after but we took all the more
important steps on the basis of our own appraisal of
the situation and the suitability of the moment.

It would be altogether inaccurate to draw the
conclusion that we were considering only the interests
of our own country and not the interests of strengthening of the
international workers' movement. Only
those who are attempting to distort and interpret in
their own way, or rather deny, the brave struggle of
our people can talk that way. 0f course, sometimes
we took their advice, too, and that turned out to be
all right to a certain extent. But in some cases, we
were only harmed in doing so because their advice
was not in the interests of our socialist country.

First of all, I should like to make an accurate
appraisal of the essence of our road to socialism. Is
it something new requiring theoretical explanation,
something that would negate the correctness of
Marxist science in the present stage, at least along
some lines? Of course it is not The essence of our
road to socialism, or better said to communism, can
be defined in a few words: our road to socialism consists in the
application of Marxist science to the given
stage, in the closest possible harmony with the specific
conditions existing in our country. For us, that science
is not a dogma but a means of leadership, a means for
orientation in every concrete situation, regardless of
how complicated it may be. We are endeavoring to
introduce the spirit of that science into everything we
do, for we are deeply convinced that this is correct.
It has turned out in practice that the principles of this
science are correct, thanks to the brilliant scientific
forecasts of our great teachers. And in the present
stage of international development, they are fully valid.
Any departure from these principles under any excuse
whatsoever would mean revision and betrayal of not
only the working class but all progressive mankind.

What are the theoretical differences between
ourselves and the Soviet Union? In order to answer
that question even partially, it is necessary to consider
what we are doing and what they are doing in the
light of the science of Marxism-Leninism, that is
a) the role of the state in the transition period and its
withering away; b) the relationship of the party to the
state; c) the question of the lower phase of communism, or, as it is
called today; socialism; d) the
question of state or socialist ownership.

Let us first take the example of our country. As
I have mentioned above, we destroyed the old state
machinery and created a new, people's state apparatus, without which the working people of our country
would not be in a position to retain power in their
hands and carry out the expropriation of the means
of production and many other revolutionary acts
absolutely necessary for the triumph of socialism in a
country.

Lenin said: "The proletariat needs state power, a
centralized organization of power, an organized force
for suppressing the resistance of the exploiters and for
readership of the great masses of the population,
peasants, petty bourgeoisie, semi-proletariat, and also
for the establishment of socialist ownership". (Lenin
State and Revolution page 142, Russian edition, free
translation). "But it should not be forgotten", says
Lenin, quoting Marx. "That the proletariat needs only
the state which is withering away".

That is how Lenin refers to this matter. And what
does the bourgeoisie need? The bourgeoisie, the
exploiting class, needs the state as a permanent force
for maintaining the exploited classes in subjection,
meaning the majority of the people. The bourgeoisie
does not contemplate the weakening of the state
machinery, to say nothing of its withering away, for
it considers its system, the system of exploitation,
immortal and perfect. Accordingly, the difference between the bourgeois state, no matter how disguised it
may be by a democratic screen, and our state, for
instance, is that the bourgeois state, an apparatus of
force in the hands of a minority, meaning the class
exploiter, oppresses the majority of the people and has
the tendency to increase in strength. Here, although
the state has the job of restraining the minority of
exploiters and enemies of new Yugoslavia, it is.
gradually dying away, for its functions, primarily in
the economy, are gradually being transferred to the
working people.

According to Marxist science, the state is a product of "class conflicts", and it will wither away when
classes disappear, when there is no longer anyone to
suppress or any reason to suppress them.

Where is the beginning of this withering away
process in our country? I shall mention only the following
examples. First, decentralization of the state
administration, especially in economy. Secondly, turning over the
factories and economic enterprises in
general to the working collectives to manage themselves, etc. The decentralization of economy and political, cultural and other aspects of life is not only
profoundly democratic but has inherent in it the seeds
of withering away not only of centralism, but of the
state in general, as a machine of force. This is a fact
which anyone can check on here if they want to.

How do things look in the Soviet Union thirty-one
years after the October Revolution? The October Revolution made
it possible for the state to take the
means of production into its hands. But these means
are still, after 31 years, in the hands of the state. Has
the slogan "the factories for the workers" been put
into practice? Of course not. The workers still do not
have any say in the management of the factories. They
are managed by directors who are appointed by the
state, that is, by civil service employees. The workers
only have the 'possibility and the right to work but
this is not very different from the role of the workers
in capitalist countries. The only difference for workers
is that there is no unemployment in the Soviet Union,
and that is all. Therefore, the leaders of the Soviet
Union have not, so far, put through one of the most
characteristic measures of a socialist state, that of
turning over the factories and other economic enterprises to the workers so that they may manage them.
Since the Soviet leaders consider state ownership as
the highest form of social ownership, the fact that
they have not turned over the means of production to
the workers to manage probably issues from such a
conception of state ownership. Besides, this is altogether in accordance with the strengthening of their
state machine. That is also a fact that anyone can
ascertain for themselves, if they want to learn the
truth.

In speaking of the 31 years that have passed
since the Revolution, we are not making the slow
tempo of economic development and creation of material conditions for socialism the main targets of
criticism of the Soviet Union. To do that, without
taking into consideration all the factors conditioning
the pace of development would be unjust and incorrect.
First of all, we know that the classics of Marxism
presumed that the inevitability of social transformation,
that is socialism, would come at a time when the production forces were developed to a high degree, when
industry, electrification and other things were so
highly developed that their passing over into social
ownership was imperative. We know that the Soviet
government inherited one of the most backward
industrial countries, and that, therefore, it was
necessary to create the material conditions for
socialism, which already exist in highly developed
capitalist countries. This cannot be achieved rapidly.
But, on the other hand, the state cannot keep all
functions — including the economy — in, its hands
until it reaches that high degree of industrialization
and creates all the necessary material and other conditions for
socialism. Only those who want to revise
the teachings on withering away of the state can put
things that way. Such people also think that socialism
can be achieved in leaps and bounds and that exact
lines can be drawn determining the lower and higher
phases of communism. We are criticizing something
else. Firstly, the method of management which
obstructs the rapid development of economy in the
Soviet Union, for if the methods were better then the
achievements of economic development in the USSR
would be greater today. Secondly, we are criticizing
the methods of education in the USSR and thirdly,
their concepts of the role of big nations, and so on.

What about the withering away of the state in
the Soviet Union? (Here the state is considered not
as a geographic or national concept for it is not identical with
administration). Are there any tendencies in
that country to turn over the state functions, either
economic or political, to the lower organs? Are there
any signs of decentralization? So far there have been
none. On the contrary, there is increasingly inflexible
centralism which is a feature of the most outspoken
bourgeois, bureaucratic, centralistic state. The most
obvious signs of such centralization are: a) concentration of all
economic, political, cultural and other
functions in one center; b) a tremendous bureaucratic
apparatus; c) increase instead of decrease of the
internal armed forces of the state apparatus like the
militia, Ministry of Internal Affairs, NKVD, etc.
I might mention that so far the only state function
that still does not come into consideration for withering
away is the Army because the degree of its increase
or decrease depends on external circumstances, on
the degree of danger threatening a socialist country
from outside, of its peaceful building of socialism and
its very existence being threatened. But this function
can only come into consideration as a means of defending a
socialist country and in no case for aggression
against anyone whomsoever. It would lose its socialist character and take on imperialist features if it
should want to invade other territories and suppress
other peoples.
Such centralism is a feature of the most express
type of centralistic, bourgeois state. Lenin said: "Centralistic state
power, typical of bourgeois society,
emerged in the epoch of the decline of absolutism."
(Lenin, The State and the Revolution, page 144,
Russian edition, free translation).

Whence this centralism and stagnation in the
development of the Soviet Union towards socialism?
It issues from the Soviet leaders' interpretation of the
teachings of Marx and Lenin on the state. Stalin has
another point of view on the withering away of the
state. Marx, Engels and Lenin taught that the state
begins withering away at that moment when the
proletariat comes to power. Of course, this means
that the proletariat should 'really be in power in every
respect. This withering away of the state begins first
of all in ,its economic functions", in management of
production by the producers, in gradual transition of
economic functions from the state to the working
collectives, not in leaps and hounds, all at once, but
gradually, to avoid anarchy.

As soon as there is no longer any class of society
be held in subjection; as long as, along with class
domination and the struggle for individual existence
based on the former anarchy of production, the
collisions and excesses arising from these have also
been abolished, there is nothing more to be repressed
which would make a special repressive force, a state,
necessary. The first act in which the state really
comes forward as the representative of society as a
whole — the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society — is at the same time
its last independent act as a state. The interference
of the state power in social relations becomes superfluous in one
sphere after another, and then ceases
of itself. The government of persons is replaced by
the administration of things and the direction of the
process of production. The state is not 'abolished', it
withers away". (F. Engels, Anti-Dühring, p. 308-
309. English edition).

These are the teachings of Marx and Engels. But
what did Stalin say at the Thirteenth Congress of the
Soviet Communist Party in 1939? First of all, he added
two conditions to Engels' formulation on the withering
away of the state, saying:

"Is this proposition of Engels' correct"?

"Yes, it is correct but only on one of two conditions: (1) if we study the Socialist state only from the
angle of the internal development of the country,
abstracting ourselves in advance from the international
factor, isolating, for the convenience of investigation,
the country and the state from the international
situation; or, (2) if we assume that Socialism is
already victorious in all countries, or in the majority
of countries, that a Socialist encirclement exists instead
of a capitalist encirclement, that there is no more
danger of foreign attack, and that there is no more
need to strengthen the Army and the state." Right
after that, he says that the function of the state "as
the organizer of the economy" remains and that the
Soviet state has no internal but only external functions.
He stated: "The principal task of this period (referring
to the second period of Soviet development) was to
establish the Socialist economic system all over the
country and to eliminate the last remnants of the
capitalist elements, to bring about a cultural revolution, and to form
a thoroughly modern army for
the defense of the country. And the functions of our
Socialist state changed accordingly. The function of
military suppression inside the country ceased, died
away; for exploitation had been abolished, there were
no more exploiters left, and so there was no one to
suppress." And further: "As for our army, punitive
organs, and intelligence service, their edge is no
longer turned to the inside of the country but to the
outside, against external enemies."..."The function
of economic organization and cultural education by
the state organs also remained, and was developed
to the full". This is the way Stalin treated the question
of withering away of the state and the way he described
the situation in the Soviet Union in 1939. In 1939, it
could really be said that the Soviet Union was entirely
surrounded by capitalist countries. But after the Second
World War, when a whole series of new socialist
states emerged in the proximity of the Soviet Union,
there could no longer be any question of the capitalist
encirclement of the Soviet Union. To say that the
functions of the state as an armed force, not only of
the army but also the so-called punitive organs, are
directed only outwards means talking with no connection with reality, just as it has no connection with the
present situation in the Soviet Union. What is the
tremendous bureaucratic, centralistic apparatus doing?
Are its functions directed outwards? What are the
NKVD and the militia doing? Are their functions
directed outwards? Who deports millions of citizens
of various nationalities to Siberia and the Far North?
Can anyone claim that these are measures against
the class enemy, can anyone say that whole nations
are a class to be destroyed? Who is obstructing the
struggle of opinions in the Soviet Union? Is not all
this being done by one of the most centralized, most
bureaucratic state apparatuses which bears no resemblance whatsoever to a state machine that is withering
away? Stalin is right in one thing here if it is applied
to the present period and that is that this state machine
really has functions regarding the outside world. But
this must be added, too — that these functions are
aimed where they are necessary and where they are
not. They are directed at interfering in the internal
affairs of other countries, and against the will of the
people of those countries. Therefore, these are least
of all the functions of a socialist state that is withering
away but rather resemble the functions of an imperialist state
machine which is fighting for spheres of
influence and the subjugation of other peoples.

Further, how does Stalin present the question of
the role of the Party in relation to the State? In his
works he never determined the role of the Party in
the first phase of communism, i. e. in socialism. He
reduces the role of the Party to administration of a
state apparatus that still bears the stamp of class
society. Therefore, it is no wonder that the Party in
the Soviet Union is becoming more and more bureaucratic and is growing to be part and parcel of the
bureaucratic state apparatus, becoming identified with
it, and simply a part of it. It is therefore losing all
contact with the people and with those things which
should be occupying it. Its duty is to be the organizer
and most active participant in all political, cultural
and economic actions, to take active part in all fields
of social activity and to keep a check on the same,
to increase the creative enthusiasm of the masses by
its own example. To reduce the role of the Party to
being a part of the bureaucratic apparatus, a part of
the state machinery of coercion, for the implementation of various enforced measures — all this is contrary
to the teaching of Lenin on the role of the Party in
the first, transitional period, as leader and educator,
and not persecutor. This stereotyped concept was
beginning to take hold here, too, but we undertook
the necessary measures and will keep a strict lookout
for any such thing here.

And how do the Soviet leaders treat the question
of development into communism? Nowhere does
Marxism speak about reaching communism by way
of leaps and bounds, although two phases, are referred
to, the lower and the higher phase of communism
which represents a whole in which the transition to
communism is gradually brought about. There is
reference to gradual development to a higher phase,
communism, after the proletariat has taken the state
power. Nevertheless, the Soviet leaders put matters
as though they can, determine when it is to be Considered that the higher phase, communism, has been
reached. This is no joke but rather the sad truth for
everyone knows that in 1948, Molotov announced that
they were entering a higher phase of communism.

Here is how Marx defined the passage into the
higher phase: "in a higher phase of communist society,
after the enslaving subordination of individuals under
division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis
between mental and physical labor, has vanished,
after labor has become not merely a means to live but
has become itself the primary necessity of life, after
the productive forces have also increased with the
all-round development of the individual, and all the
springs of cooperative wealth flow more abundantly
— only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois
right be fully left behind and society inscribe on its
banner: from each according to his ability, to each
according to his needs." (Critique of the Gotha
Program,Selected Works of Karl Marx, p. 566,
English edition).

That is how matters stand with the higher phase
of communism. The Soviet Union is still very, very
far from that, and of course, so are we.

There have been people who think that the problem
of management of the means of production is solved
simply by appointing the best workers directors or
managers. Such a measure is a good thing because
we get people in those positions in whom we can have
faith, in whom the state of the working people can
have faith. Through such worker-directors who
emerged from the ranks of the working people themselves, the people's state can keep a better check on
the running of business. Such a director also understands the needs of the workers better and will concern himself with them. He will also take good care
of the state, meaning the people's, property. This was
the most urgent measure connected with the state's
taking over of the means of production. But, of course,
things cannot remain at this point if we want to avoid
the many inconveniences which might crop up from
this over a long period of time. That is one thing. The
second is that the slogan "the factories for the
workers" has still not been realized nor could the idea
of the withering away of state functions in economy
be realized this way either.

As I have already pointed out, the draft of the
bill we are considering is of tremendous importance
for the further correct development of our socialist
country but it still does not solve the question. It is
simply one step further toward communism. The state
functions in the management of economy are not yet
ceasing completely, but they are no longer the
exclusive factor. They are getting weaker because
the working people are being drawn into the management. They are being drawn in gradually, and not all
at once. That means they, as the producers, are getting
their rights to manage production. Why is this being
done gradually, and not all at once? How long will
this gradual process unfold? No answer as to the exact
length of time can be given because this depends on
various circumstances. It depends on the pace of cultural development, meaning the extensive training of
the workers so that they may be capable in every way
of running factories, mines, transport, etc., successfully
for the benefit of the community. Without that the
workers would not be capable of keeping a check on
the production. Without cultural advancement, the
workers would not be able to get sufficient technical
knowledge for management. This depends on the
tempo of development of production forces, etc.

This cultural advancement of the working people
is all the more important in our country, and represents
one of its most difficult problems, because our country
was one of the most backward in Europe as regards
the degree of development of production forces. Our
industry has just begun to develop in full swing.
Therefore, the pace with which all the functions of
management in the economy are transferred to the
working people depends on the tempo of development
of production forces. This, in turn, depends on the
workers themselves, on their production of consumer
commodities, on their economizing rather than wasting,
etc. Lenin said: "Communism begins where there is
self-sacrificing mastery of hard work, concern by the
ordinary workers for the productivity of labor, for
watching over every pood of wheat, coal, iron and
other products which are not for them personally, or
for their "near" or "far" relatives, but for all of
society." (Lenin, Book XXIV, p. 142, Russian edition
— free translation).

Why I am giving first place to the necessity of
cultural advancement? If we take a look at the number
of industrial workers in the old Yugoslavia, the number
there are today, and the number there will be tomorrow, it is not
hard to guess at the crux of the matter.
Who is entering the industrial and other enterprises
today? Peasants. Therefore, there is a tremendous
number of peasants, semi-peasants, and semi-workers
coming into the enterprises today and they must first
be trained as workers and then educated as workers-
managers. That is neither a short nor an easy task
and must be approached with the utmost seriousness,
patience and energy. In educating these new workers,
we have enough to do t0 eliminate the alien conceptions of many of the workers regarding their duties
as workers, their relationship to the state, that is, to
the people's property, etc.

Let us simply take the fact that we are constructing a great many projects, even the biggest ones, in
the most backward parts of the country, such as
Bosnia, Sandzak, Macedonia, Kosovo and Metohiya,
Lika, Montenegro, etc. Up to now, there had been
very little or no industry at all there. And who is to
work in those factories, mines and other enterprises?
The peasants from these backward regions! The poorer
peasants in these backward areas are to go to work,
and they will do so, in these factories and mines.
From poor peasants who have for centuries been
vegetating at the lowest possible cultural level and
standard of living, they are to become conscious
workers, builders of a better life for themselves and
the whole socialist community. This will not be an
easy or a rapid process. We are conscious of that, for
we already have considerable experience in how hard it
is train a semi-peasant or semi-worker into a conscious
and disciplined industrial worker. Great efforts are
necessary to achieve this and it must be shown to
these semi-workers that i our socialist country they
become not only, producers in industry, mining, etc.
but also the owners of the means of production. They
must be shown that in entering the factories, mines
and other enterprises they have at the same time
become their owners. It is not that little piece of
unfertile land which never could offer them a life
worthy of man but the factories, mines and other
things that will give them a better Life than they and
their ancestors had. Why is it necessary for semi-
peasants and semi-workers to become conscious industrial
workers? It is necessary, in the first place,
because we are building many factories and enterprises, more and more mines are being opened, in a
word, we are industrializing our socialist country to
make it richer, to make the unexploited wealth accessible to all the citizens of our country, so that the
people can make use of these riches, etc. So that these
factories, mines, etc. can be put into operation, we
need workers who will be capable of mastering new,
modern techniques. Such modern techniques cannot
be mastered by semi-peasants thinking more of their
parcel of unfertile land than of the contemporary means
of production which are no longer private and capitalist, but the social property of the entire community.
They are no longer managed by capitalists or their
well-paid and faithful employees and bureaucrats who
cared only for the interests of the capitalists and for
squeezing as much profit as possible out of the workers
for the capitalists' pockets for this the bureaucrats
also got their little cut. Only the workers will manage
these factories and mines in our country. They
themselves will determine how to work and how long,
they will know why they are working and what the
results of their labor will be used for. In order to be
able to introduce this system everywhere throughout
the country, we must work persistently to overcome
its backwardness, to help the semi-peasants rise to the
level of the conscious industrial workers, who will
understand their own duties and their rights as
builders of socialism.

We see, therefore, that there are great difficulties
on the road of building communism in a backward
country, as ours is, for instance. What should we do
then? Should we wait for all workers to be equally
intelligent and capable of managing enterprises? Of
course not, because we should have to wait a long,
gong time. In the process of management, in the
unceasing process of labor and running the enterprises,
all the workers will gain experience. They will become
acquainted not only with the process of work but also
with all the problems of their enterprise. It is only
through practice that the workers will learn to make
use of records, to learn how much material they may
use and how much they can save, to see what the
surplus of their labor goes for and what it is used for.
They will find out what the share of accumulation of
their enterprise must be as a part of planned accumulation in general, and how much they can raise their
standard of living. They must know how much and at
what a pace they can increase the productivity of
labor, etc. They will unconditionally have to become
acquainted with work discipline, because from that
moment when the working people take upon themselves the responsibility of participating in the management of economy, the problem of labor discipline
becomes their first duty.

It will be an especially important thing for the
workers' councils to see to it that the labor force is
distributed as rationally as possible, not to allow unnecessary and unproductive manpower to sit around
the factories doing nothing. This means that they
should cut down on bureaucracy and administration
because otherwise they would simply be raising the
costs of production and lowering the lucrativeness of
their enterprise at the expense of their entire collective. It is necessary to know how to differentiate
between the need for specialists and superfluous
administrative, unproductive machinery.

By turning over the factories, mines, etc., to the
workers to manage, we will make it impossible for an
infectious disease to take hold there, a disease bearing
the name of bureaucracy. This disease is unbelievably
easily and rapidly carried over from bourgeois society
and it is dangerous in the transition period. Like a
polyp thousands of tentacles it obstructs and impedes
the correct and rapid process of development. Bureaucracy is among the biggest enemies of socialism precisely because it insinuates itself unnoticed into all the
pores of social activity and people are not conscious
of it in the beginning. It would be erroneous to think
that bureaucracy has not taken root in our country,
too. It has begun worming its way into various institutions, into
the state apparatus and into the economy
but we are conscious of that and have already undertaken a whole series of measures to render in impossible. It is not
enough simply to undertake periodical
drives against it but to wage incessant struggle and
to educate people.

Lenin says that technical and cultural backwardness is the
most fertile ground for bureaucracy but at
the only way to fight successfully against bureaucracy.
the only way to fight successfully against bureaucracy.
"To fight against bureaucracy until the end, to full
victory over it, is possible if the whole population
takes part in it. In the bourgeois republics that was
not only impossible but was impeded by the laws
themselves. The best bourgeois republic, no matter
how democratic it may be, has thousands of legal
obstructions preventing the working people from
participating in administration. Besides the laws, there
is also the cultural level which cannot be subordinated
to any law. This low cultural level makes the Soviets
which, on the basis of their program should be the
organs of administration through the working people,
actually organs of administration for the workers
through the progressive part of the proletariat and
not through the mass of workers." (Lenin, Vol. 24,
page 145, Russian edition, free translation'). This is
due to the cultural backwardness to which Lenin
refers and therein lies the danger of bureaucratization
of administration.

From Lenin, we see that bureaucracy flowers
especially where backwardness is widespread. This
words show us where we are to seek the roots of
bureaucracy. Does that not show that bureaucracy
flowers there where people are still not conscious of
their rights of keeping check on and fighting determinedly against, all bureaucratic procedures, where
people are still not conscious that bureaucracy is a
harmful thing for socialism which cannot simply be
uprooted by decree from above but must be fought
by every conscious person in every day practice. It is
wrong to think that bureaucracy can take hold only
n high institutions and that it is harder for it to
insinuate itself into the lower ones. Bureaucracy can
penetrate down to the lowest state and economic
administrate organs if t is not fought. Of course, it
is a tragedy for a socialist country if bureaucracy
takes hold from the highest to the lowest institutions,
if the top executives do not see and do not want to
see the harm it is doing. In order to suppress bureaucracy successfully, it is not enough to undertake
measures only at the top, in the highest institutions,
and to think that it is not dangerous below. It is very
dangerous below, as our experience has shown us.
Therefore, bureaucracy is dangerous in the administrative machinery of the republics, the regions, the
districts and municipalities, and in the running of
various kinds of commercial and other economic
institutions. With the help of the masses, we must
fight against it and not allow this phenomenon so
harmful to socialism to spread.

Today, when not only the state administration
but the whole economy is in the hands of the people,
the people must keep an alert check on the work of
those who are appointed to administrative posts to
see that they are doing their duty for the benefit of
the socialist community. The working collectives and
their councils, which will run the factories, mines, etc.,
will have the very important task of making it
impossible for bureaucratic methods to be used in
management.

Role of the Trade Unions

The role of the trade anions under new conditions
where the working people are taking part in the
management is somewhat altered. Their functions are
now directed mainly toward the most important
problem in trade union work — the training and all-
round cultural advancement of the working people.
The work of the trade unions is aimed at helping the
new workers, that is, the former peasants, through
persistent work by the trade unions and under the
leadership of the Party, get rid of their "small-owner"
habits as quickly as possible, and advance rapidly to
the level of the most conscious workers with a new,
socialist relationship toward the means of production,
toward the factories, mines, social ownership, toward
work. These new workers must be educated as quickly
as possible to be tireless and self-sacrificing builders
of communist society, meaning a better and happier
life for all working people.

As far as the participation of workers in the
management of enterprises, or production, is concerned, the trade unions' task of protecting the workers'
interests weakens to a certain extent. Now, these
matters are decided by the workers themselves through
their councils, that is, through the management boards
in production. This also facilitates the two-fold role of
the trade unions which on the one hand had to protect
the interests of the workers and on the other, also
had to keep track of the interests of the people's state,
of the whole, of the entire community. The work of
the trade unions will also be eased by the fact of the
workers becoming acquainted with the process of
management of production, with all its problems,
with accumulation, cost of production, and various
difficulties which the directors or rather, the former
boards and trade unions had to face alone before.
In any case, this will contribute a great deal to the
stabilization of work discipline in the factories, mines
and other enterprises.

The bill shows that the workers take over the
functions of management in the most democratic way.
The workers in the factories, mines and enterprises
by secret ballot, directly elect the workers' councils.
These workers' councils and the management board,
which is elected by the members of the council, must
have the full support of the trade unions. To make this
possible, the management boards also include representatives of the trade union of workers and employees
in that enterprise. They therefore also bear their part
of the responsibility for management, instead of
simply being advisory bodies without any particular
competence, or responsible duties.

This Bill is one of the most democratic acts ever
brought forward here. Its substance is a reflection of
socialist realities in our country. Let us take a look
only at the duties and rights of workers' councils.
Article 23 says: "The workers' council of an enterprise: approves the plans and the closing accounts
of an enterprise; makes decisions on the management
of an enterprise and the fulfillment of the economic
plan; elects, recalls, and changes the management
board of the enterprise or its members individually;
draws up the regulations for the enterprise with the
approval of the management board of the higher
economic association, or the competent state body;
discusses reports on the work of the management
board and makes decisions regarding approval of their
work; discusses various measures undertaken by the
management board and makes decisions on them;
distributes that part of the accumulation remaining at
the disposal of the enterprise, or working collective."

Article 27 refers to the duties of the management
board of the enterprise: "The management board of
an enterprise draws up drafts of the basic plans of
the enterprise; draws up the monthly operative plans;
sees that the enterprise is run correctly; makes
proposals for the internal organization of the enterprise and classification of jobs; makes suggestions for
rules regulating work in the enterprise and undertakes
measures to improve work discipline; makes decisions
on the appointment of employees to executive positions
in the enterprise; makes decisions on the complaints
registered by workers and employees regarding their
jobs and the internal distribution of work; undertakes
steps to improve the production of the enterprise,
especially as regards rationalization of production,
increasing labor productivity, lowering the costs of
production, improving the quality of the products,
taking economy measures, decreasing waste; makes
decisions on work norms in the enterprises; decides
on proclamation of shockworkers, and the proposals
of worker-inventors; takes steps to raise the technical
knowledge of the workers and employees of the
enterprise and their correct assignment to jobs; concerns itself with the correct application of regulations
on labor relations in the enterprise, on salaries, wages,
and the promotion of workers and employees, on work
protection and social insurance and of improvement
of the living standard of workers and employees in the
enterprise; discusses and decides on a plan of annual
vacations for the workers and employees in the enterprise; takes measures to protect and make correct use
of national property under the management of the
enterprise and measures to discover, prevent and eliminate cases of damage, waste and other forms of
unconscientious behavior toward state property.

The management hoard of the enterprise is
responsible for the fulfillment of the plan and the
correct running of the enterprise."

These two articles of the Bill demonstrate what
kind of functions in production are being transferred
to the working collective. These were formally in the
competence of the state and were carried out through
its representatives with a certain degree of participation by the trade unions.

From now on, the state ownership of the means
of production — factories, mines, railways — is
passing gradually on to a higher form of socialist
ownership. State ownership is the lowest form of
social ownership, and not the highest as the leaders of
the USSR consider it to be. Therein lies our road to
socialism and that is the only right road as regards
the withering away of state functions in the economy.
Let the Cominformists remember that their slanderous
hue and cry cannot obscure the correctness of our
building of socialism.

On the other hand, this bill on the participation
of working collectives, of our working people, in the
management of the economy of our country is the
best answer to the question of where there is true
democracy — here in our country, or in the much
praised and lauded western democracy. In our country,
democracy is based on a material basis for the
broadest masses of working people. It is felt by the
masses, they are making use of it to build a better
and happier future for all the working people of our
country. This is an answer to those in the West who
talk so much about there being no real democracy in
our country, that we have a police state here, etc.,
who like to talk about our scarcities, about the things
we do not have, and so on. It is true that we still lack
many things for we are not yet in a position to produce
the means for making them, to produce enough
consumers' goods, enough of everything making life
better for people and raising their standard of living.
But we are on the road to doing so, and we will do
so, but not only for a minority as is the case in the
West. What good is it that the stores in the West are
full of things that people can only wish for; who there
today can satisfy their desires to purchase all that?
Only a very small number of people. The ruling class
can satisfy itself, but not the great majority of the
working people. Therefore, that is democracy for a
minority, because the working people who barely earn
enough to live or the unemployed workers and
employees have nothing of the kind of democracy
which deprives them of the fruits of their labors and
maintains them only so that they can support other
physically capable persons and assure them a rich
existence. We, however, are working so that all those
who labor can enjoy the fruits of their labor and that
is the material essence of our democracy.

We are conscious of the fact that we shall have
not a little difficulty until our workers overcome all
the hardships issuing from our backwardness. But we
may be certain that our workers will see all these
difficulties through, because they are conscious that
the building of socialism is their own cause, that it
can be realized only by their own persistent, self-
sacrificing, creative efforts.

From the very beginning, our people's government
has shown the greatest concern for the working
people, for the people of our country in general. If it
were not to do so, it would no longer be a people's
government. Everything that is being done and built
here has one purpose: to make our workers happier,
to give them better living conditions. The workers of
town and country are masters of the present and of a
better future for themselves. How rapidly that better
future comes when it will no longer be necessary for
people to make such great efforts, depends on the
working people of town and country themselves, on
their persistence, self-sacrifice and patience. It depends
on how hard they work, on there being fewer people
just standing aside, on everyone's giving something
of himself to the daily struggle for the fulfillment of
the Five Year Plan, for increasing the productivity of
labor, for producing the best possible consumers' goods
for the citizens of our socialist country. The peasants
in the cooperatives, which they run themselves, and
the workers in the factories, which they will from now
on be managing themselves, today really have their
destinies in their own hands.

Notes

A. On June 26th, 1950 the Yugoslav Federal Assembly passed the Basic Law on Management of State Economic Enterprises and Higher Economic Associations by the Workers' Collectives. On that occasion, Marshal Tito, the President of the Federal Government, delivered a speech pointing out the character of this Law and the aim of developing Socialism in Yugoslavia. The speech is presented here in its entirety.

B. The word "maintain" (as opposed to "pretend" in the original text) may be closer to Tito's original statement.